[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/hm/ - Handsome Men


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 132 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


All work safe boards are now on the 4channel.org domain. Make sure to update your script blockers and whitelist the new domain.

There's now a setting option under Navigation to display the full list of boards on 4channel.org

The 4chan Vtuber Competition is over. Click here to see the winning entry!




Old Thread: >>1735927

give us your scrawny, your awkward, your pale and spotty. gives us your nearsighted, farsighted, and your just plain kind of weird-looking

don't just post guys with glasses or guys in marvel shirts. that's not what this is about
>>
File: do38484794844739477593.jpg (335 KB, 1280x1707)
335 KB
335 KB JPG
>>1773464
>>
>>1773464
>>
>>
File: Nerd-2-500x300.jpg (34 KB, 500x300)
34 KB
34 KB JPG
>>
File: 820,c5057sx.jpg (57 KB, 750x500)
57 KB
57 KB JPG
>>
File: 134567890987654567890.jpg (90 KB, 540x721)
90 KB
90 KB JPG
>>
File: kgygudshidhwund.jpg (69 KB, 540x651)
69 KB
69 KB JPG
>>
File: 276756678798.jpg (94 KB, 682x1000)
94 KB
94 KB JPG
>>
File: 26787980908767.jpg (80 KB, 682x1000)
80 KB
80 KB JPG
>>1773494
>>
File: grr.jpg (71 KB, 1192x892)
71 KB
71 KB JPG
>>
File: 434567890898754.jpg (1.95 MB, 3000x4000)
1.95 MB
1.95 MB JPG
>>
File: Untitled.png (129 KB, 185x300)
129 KB
129 KB PNG
Weird request but anyone got porn of a guy in glasses and hair kind of like this? Not as pale though. I had a coworker who looked like that and he was hot as fuck despite looking like a nerd... I always wanted to suck him off but he was straight and had a gf. He had that almost arrogant confidence that some nerdy guys have and it was attractive
>>
File: 043624977.jpg (285 KB, 2048x1536)
285 KB
285 KB JPG
>>
>>
>>1773494
>>1773495
who is he
>>
>>1773470
oh i like his blog
>>
>>1773499

Yay, being left-handed makes him even more nerdy

#truestory
>>
>>1773496
sauce?
>>
File: 5678656789.jpg (95 KB, 600x800)
95 KB
95 KB JPG
>>1773540
choke
>>
File: 1285884253998.jpg (303 KB, 960x1280)
303 KB
303 KB JPG
>>
File: 1285890518215.jpg (31 KB, 480x610)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
>>
File: 1286389383260.jpg (304 KB, 1600x1200)
304 KB
304 KB JPG
>>
File: 1287260284486.jpg (560 KB, 1718x1723)
560 KB
560 KB JPG
>>
File: 1287877931142.jpg (182 KB, 480x640)
182 KB
182 KB JPG
>>
File: 1288244833573.jpg (42 KB, 520x716)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
>>
File: 1290758406889.jpg (1.19 MB, 3000x4000)
1.19 MB
1.19 MB JPG
>>
File: 1290914037633.jpg (41 KB, 500x375)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>>
>>1773547
Where do you find pics like this? Is there a common tag to search for normal, nerdy looking guys? Not just muscular hunks with glasses
>>
File: grmonst.jpg (50 KB, 287x512)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
>>
Best dickpic, hmmmmm
>>
>>1775072
>comparing your dick to a shot glass
y tho?
it's tiny
>>
>>1775100
Where the fuck do you see a shot glass? Do you know what a shot glass is???
>>
>>1775072
Cute guy though
>>
>>1775200
Are you trying to tell me that is a normal sized monster can?
Look at his giant hands.
>>
>>1773539
It's Jeffery Dallas
>>
>>1775219
That is a normal sized can... are you retarded? You can even clearly read the oz content of the can on the side it's full size

Also his hands look normal not everyone is Trump
>>
>>1775236
I agree with the other guy. That can looks suspiciously small
>>
File: IMG_2782.jpg (94 KB, 720x1040)
94 KB
94 KB JPG
>>
>>
File: 127901920786.jpg (101 KB, 600x800)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
>>
File: JUB2.jpg (125 KB, 531x1250)
125 KB
125 KB JPG
>>
File: JUB4.jpg (45 KB, 800x600)
45 KB
45 KB JPG
>>
File: 132882077668.jpg (38 KB, 800x600)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
>>
>>
>>1773465
>>1773464

sauce?
>>
>>1775357
>>1775356
>>1775355
oh god YES
>>
>>1775072
who is this guy? i keep seeing posts of him but they're never consistently sourced.
>>
File: IMG_0339.jpg (68 KB, 211x282)
68 KB
68 KB JPG
>>1775587
https://old.reddit.com/user/PM_ME_SEXY_SHT/overview

>>1775575
>>
File: Oscar Andres Lopez3.jpg (107 KB, 720x960)
107 KB
107 KB JPG
The nerdy, ugly, skinny they are, the bigger the cock.
>>
>>1775354
i need him in my life.
>>
apocalypticpenis.tumblr.com/post/165475966962
>>
>>1775587
>>1775072
He's on reddit as pm_me_sexy_sht
>>
>>1774071
That's Adonis-kun. He's an old came here from back in the mid to late aughts. He was really active on both 4 and 7chan or at least people reposted his shit on both sites.

Funny story, a friend of mine from Kentucky once got catfished by a guy using Adonis-kun pictures. Thankfully he sent me a pic and I told him who it was. No idea how many pictures they may have swapped before that though.
>>
>>
>>1777603
I would let him destroy my ass
>>
File: 777878790.jpg (78 KB, 540x810)
78 KB
78 KB JPG
>>
Bump
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>1780123
I need moar
>>
File: mxg669ub41o11.jpg (339 KB, 1520x2688)
339 KB
339 KB JPG
>>
>>1780124
This is the exquisitely perfect man ever!
>>
File: 190137_original_135023.jpg (1.02 MB, 1536x2048)
1.02 MB
1.02 MB JPG
>>
https://gianttornfromclouds.tumblr.com/post/178593958349
>>
Bump
>>
>>
>>
more
>>
this guy actually does straight porn
>>
>>1784890
looks like Evan Parker's uglier older brother
>>
>>1784891
don't know who that is and don't care enough to google it but i'd still let him stick it in
>>
also im like single handedly keeping this thread alive

post some spergs anons
>>
>>1786095
Totally my type id be your cum slut
>>
File: 654654654.jpg (286 KB, 864x1536)
286 KB
286 KB JPG
>>
File: 5466546521.jpg (152 KB, 768x1280)
152 KB
152 KB JPG
>>
File: 6514654.jpg (284 KB, 960x1280)
284 KB
284 KB JPG
>>
>>1786094
conor coxx if you wanna find more
>>
File: 52c350723135909c.jpg (514 KB, 1844x1351)
514 KB
514 KB JPG
>>
File: 1537025780585.jpg (98 KB, 832x641)
98 KB
98 KB JPG
how do you get off to these spectacled nerds?
>>
>>1786240
Cute af would make my boyfriend
>>
>>1786257
Seriously? My personal theory is they have low self esteem an absolutely horrendous self-image. The anons posting them these types (probably correctly) as even more desperate and willing to settle for anyone than they themselves are.

That puts them mentally back in the position of superiority. You don't have to worry about bettering yourself or fixing any of your own imperfections or personality problems when the loser you're dating is (quoting OP) "scrawny,...awkward, ...pale and spotty. ...nearsighted, farsighted, ... just plain kind of weird-looking."

In essence, it's the same essential type of fail that happens on the "chubby boys" thread. Leave them to their misery and pity them for it.
>>
File: Geek w Whopper Cock.jpg (48 KB, 481x392)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
>>
>>1786276
you must have been made of pure self hate
>>
>>1786296
Self-hate? Why? It's not my fetish, not my interest.

I go for decent to hot looking guys. If I've reached above my own status, big deal. He giives me the brush-off and I move on. Even if he's way hotter than me, sometimes I DON'T get the brush-off. Maybe he's feeling needy, maybe HE got the brush-off from someone even hotter and he's feeling insecure. Maybe he's just gotten dumped, he's heart-broken and he's going to just use me for a bounce-back relationship until he's regained his confidence and emotional balance. Who cares?

Point is, dating/ hookups should be like anything else in life. You do your absolute best and reach for the best.

If you're speaking from personal experience from dating these kinds of losers and you know all about it, fine. Don't go bawwing at me, go answer >>1786257
>>
>>1786276
this reads like someone who's definition of what is attractive is so narrow that they themselves will probably never live up to it and it bothers them immensely.

>>1786257
with my hand on my dick?
>>
>>1786308
This reads like someone who's finally seen their own dismal standards the way everyone else sees them and it bothers them immensely.

If you want to be a bottom-feeder that's entirely your decision, anon. Just don't get ass-pained when someone else recognizes for what it is. The genuinely sad part is 'my' definition of attractive doesn't matter and, here's the important part, neither does yours.

Unless you're a refugee from the Chubby Thread or you truly look like the people on this one (and most "average" guys look waaay better), you can do better. Really. You don't have to settle for this.

I'm not putting you down. I'm trying to keep you from putting yourself down.
>>
>>1786341
>why would people want to fuck these guys and not me
>why am i still single but these ugly people are getting so much attention
>im way better than all these guys! why doesn't anyone see that!
>this is how i spend my friday nights so clearly i know whats what and how to be happy

zzzz
>>
>>1786347
It's fascinating to watch the losers shooting at the messenger. Yet for all the pot-shots, none of you ever gave >>1786257 a straight answer. It's obvious you don't like the answer I gave, okay, great. If you think I'm wrong, then why can't you him the "right" explanation?

You can't into greentext. I don't need to ask your first question. I've already answered it for you and that pisses you off. Someone has convinced you these guys are the best you can do and it's almost certainly false. Sure, I'm better than these guys. So are you. So are most guys here on /hm/. So are most guys, gay or straight, everywhere else. With this thread's content, that's anything but a superiority complex.

Protip: Some of us work nights and we do so by choice. We get paid incredibly well because we enjoy living like Count Dracula. Not having to put up with someone like you as a co-worker for eight fucking hours every "day" is also a definite plus.
>>
>>1786355
>why aren't you answering my bait?
>please respond to my bait so i can post the response i'm dying to post
>i have well paying job! so well payed compared to yours!
>ostensibly i spend my friday nights at work trolling porn boards
>listen to me and you can have successful life like mine
>>
File: 20181013_110801.jpg (2.82 MB, 4128x3096)
2.82 MB
2.82 MB JPG
Poop on his face
>>
>>1786363
It wasn't a bait and it isn't mine. Try again.
You should be grateful I'm validating you with an answer. Lucky you!
Ostensibly (whoo we got us a college-man here, I see) right now I'm closely monitoring a huge-ass system that typically has zero load on it at this hour because most users are asleep. It'll be picking up right around the time I flutter off to my coffin. In reality, I get to play with my phone and push you around online. Lucky me!
I'm not going to risk a nice cushy set-up like this accessing 4chan from a console.

If you listen to me, you'll do a lot better than the guy you just posted. Unless, of course, that's a selfie. Given a choice between us, listening to YOU won't provide anything useful.. :D
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>1786367

Just keep jacking off, smart guy. No one is impressed. I did get some entertainment from you though, so it wasn't all a waste! I am saying this drunk and with my pants down, and multiple tabs open. I feel like I'm the majority. Maybe rethink your priorities
>>
>>1786635
> No one is impressed.
/hm/ appointed you their official spokesman? You took a poll of the users? No? Somehow I'm not suprised. Obviously YOU were impressed enough to come back DAYS later with some shrill butt-hurt.

>I feel like I'm the majority.
Good for you, bro. When you sober up, take a quick look at /hm/... just scroll through the pages. You'll notice an overwhelming number of threads focusing on conventionally attractive men, some younger, some older, different ethnicities. But consistently hot.

As I've said before, if people like these kind of guys, that's there business. if you or anybody else can answer the other anon's question intelligently WHY people like these kind of guys, cool. If you can disprove my theory, fine.

But if you CAN'T, then don't complain when you can't handle the truth.
>>
>>1786513

Why does playing vidya give him a hard-on?
>>
>>1773464
Looks like Griffin McElroy.
>>
>>1786871
I'm disappointed in this particular post's lack of words at the level of "ostensibly". Still, not a bad medley of mid level sized words. I'm enjoying the diatribe from over here, please keep going! It's turning me on to imagine how large your cock must be! Also really loving the allusions to Dracula, very sexy. I'm really hoping you sink your fangs into this metaphor, going forward.
>>
>>1786872
maybe the person who took the pic is giving him a hardon

i used to blow my bf while he played COD. good times.
>>
>>1786892
>Also really loving the allusions to Dracula, very sexy.
None was made in the post.. You're re-hashing a post from days ago?

Damn, I really did hit a nerve. You ARE butt-hurt.

Embrace the pain. If you're a good boy, maybe I'll dish out a little more for you.
>>
>>1786635
>>1786871
>>1786892
>>1786911

you guys seem autistic enough to to post pics of yourselves in here

why not contribute
>>
>>1773499
Sauce on him????
>>
>>1786276
I can tell you've taken your first psychology class. Congratulations on your C. You deserve it.
>>
>>1786871
You essentially answered your own question there. I'm attracted to men who are somewhat LESS conventionally attractive. I dunno why that is, particularly. Maybe it's because the convention bores me. Think about that. I consider myself a reasonably attractive person, but I'm not built like a tank, a lot of these guys are just mega twinky, and would probably be nice guys to know in real life. Who knows
>>
>>1786928
That's the first serious answer yet.

>>1786925
Implying observation requires a "psychology class". Maybe in your case it does.

Maybe /hm/ should contact Doctor Phil and get a professional consultation why you couldn' t type out something normal like >>1786928
>>
>>1786911
Sorry, I only jumped into the thread and saw the Dracula references, I don't really sit on 4chan hitting f5 and hadn't looked at the dates. Based on your response I can see you think I'm someone you've been interacting with, already. The anonymity can cause some confusion, I understand.

"Boy" hah, I'm used to being called "daddy" but then again, I'm used to posting pics of myself. Again, the awkwardness of anonymity. Have a good one, I'll leave you to your little soapbox, you seem to be enjoying yourself.
>>
>>1786276
hey i'm the OP. I just think they're cute uwu

>>1786880
I wish

thanks to everyone for all the content!
>>
File: cutie.jpg (237 KB, 770x1280)
237 KB
237 KB JPG
>>
Thank you thread for the boner I must deal with.
>>
>>1786938
>wow other people like something different from me
>guess i'll bitch and moan on a thread I don't like
people like what they like for their own reasons, and you deciding to shit up the thread for some weird validation of your own taste is a sure sign that you need to hang yourself ASAP
>>
>>1786355
Hi, I slept with a model on Friday night and still think these guys are cute as fuck. It's not about rank or superiority, or being the best that I can do. I just think they're hella cute.
>>
>>1787925
>people like what they like for their own reasons
Thank you for gracing me with your profound ability to overstate the obvious. What's equally obvious is a.) nobody wanted to answer one anon's question as to why. b.) one guy got screamingly butthurt when I hypothesized -why- they like what they like.

>you deciding to shit up the thread for some weird validation of your own taste
Except I wasn't. >>1786871 "As I've said before, if people like these kind of guys, that's there business. if you or anybody else can answer the other anon's question intelligently WHY people like these kind of guys, cool. If you can disprove my theory, fine."

That isn't a "validation" of anything, you stupid asshole. Somehow it's never "shitting up the thread" when YOU feel like restarting an argument, it it fuckface? Funny thing about that.
>>
>>1787946
it's not anyone's job to explain their taste to you. You can have whatever retarded "personal theory" on the matter all you want, but when that personal theory happens to shit all over everyone's taste cause you think it's indicative of "absolutely horrendous self-image", don't be surprised when everyone calls you out for being a dick.

maybe people just get bored of looking at 9s or 10s and want something a little weirder? that shit gets boring, a little variety is always good.

now go fucking kill yourself for being a baiting, derailing retard
>>
>>1787946
if it's not validation what is it? there's literally zero reason to go into a thread you're not into and get butthurt about it existing. the whole point is to say "look at me! I have superior taste!"
>inb4 "genuine curiosity"
>>
>>1787946
>a.) nobody wanted to answer one anon's question as to why.
because he was a clearly a fucking troll either insulting people or baiting out responses so he could insult people. Unless he's you, he clearly hasn't been back here so he clearly doesn't give a shit whether we answered his question or not

The only person who cares is you

> b.) one guy got screamingly butthurt when I hypothesized -why- they like what they like.
you spent several post defending your life choices to an anonymous stranger in an effort to make yourself seem better in the eyes of anonymous strangers.

who is butthurt?

>if you or anybody else can answer the other anon's question intelligently WHY people like these kind of guys, cool.
again nobody, not even the anon who posted it, cares about this question but you.

> If you can disprove my theory, fine.
give solid statistical proof or studies to back up your theory and I will gladly have this discussion with you. We can talk about the data. Sample size and demographics. The possible errors. The validity of the conclusions. etc

Prove your theory and then we can talk about disproving it.

If the only proof you have is your opinion and anecdotes then that's not a theory, that just you running your dumb mouth and telling you to shut your dumb mouth up is more than an acceptable response.

It's actually the only response good men have when faced with this kind of idiocy.
>>
>>1787539
Oh god I'm in love. Any more?
>>
File: IMG_20180815_043015.jpg (162 KB, 1280x1247)
162 KB
162 KB JPG
Furry little twink slut who like his hole drilled by fat and older men.
>>
>>1787962
>it's not anyone's job to explain their taste to you.
Then it's a good thing I wasn't the one asking. You walked straight into that one, champ. That not withstanding, normal people routinely ask questions on these threads and other normal people answer them.

>...don't be surprised when everyone calls you out for being a dick.
Speaking of being a dick, screaming at me is an extremely pooor substitute for giving the original anon a straight answer. Little wonder I need to explain that to you in particular.

If just one person had written something like, "maybe people just get bored of looking at 9s or 10s and want something a little weirder? etc." there wouldn't have been any issue at all.

>a baiting, derailing retard
...and THIS, coming from a moron who a.) didn't read the thread very closely at all, b.) confused me with the guy who asked the question c.) re-started an argument that died quietly.

For a guy who loves pointing out the obvious, you do have trouble noticing it. Everything was quiet until YOU showed up. For all your outrage over "being a dick" and "shitting up the thread" and "derailing" it, you couldn't leave things be without having YOUR say. Well, now you've had it and made a fool of yourself by the time you were finished. Well done.
>>
>>1787983
>because he was a clearly a fucking troll either insulting people or baiting out responses so he could insult people.
He was blunt & obnoxious, but as you've just shown many here share those failings.

>The only person who cares is you
...about the original question? Or silently humouring your drivel? If it's the former, you're wrong. If it's the latter so sorry, no reason I should.

>you spent several post defending your life choices to an anonymous stranger in an effort to make yourself seem better in the eyes of anonymous strangers.
I don't mind explaining something, particularly when the circumstances are in my favor. Like now, for example. I'm getting paid while I'm fucking around here. Are you? Honestly? No?

>again nobody, not even the anon who posted it, cares about this question but you.
...which, since you haven't noticed, is why so little of the discussion has been about original question except in the context of the answer I gave to it.

>give solid statistical proof or studies to back up your theory and I will gladly have this discussion with you.
Psychology isn't a hard science, which you already know. The responses I received here certainly validates it. So, no, it isn't just my "opinion and anecdotes". I've got a thread full of shrill, pissy anons like yourself. After the fact, true, but the overblown reaction here is a classic case of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

>Prove your theory and then we can talk about disproving it.
A bit too late then, anon. Then it isn't a theory anymore. It's a law. Touche. See? That's what comes from your brand of smarty-pants bullshit.

>It's actually the only response good men have when faced with this kind of idiocy.

If some good men eventually appear on this thread, I'll be sure to quote you and it'll be the only useful thing you've provided.
>>
>>1788005
>He was blunt & obnoxious, but as you've just shown many here share those failings.
irrelevant. he could have been coy and polite but clearly his intent was to troll

>...about the original question? Or silently humouring your drivel? If it's the former, you're wrong. If it's the latter so sorry, no reason I should
the question that you just called blunt and obnoxious. the one you keep linking to. the one you keep saying everyone should answer. the one you reference later in your reply.

>I don't mind explaining something, particularly when the circumstances are in my favor. Like now, for example. I'm getting paid while I'm fucking around here. Are you? Honestly? No?
this continues to be a poor attempt to validate the time spent in a thread you have no interest in interacting with people you think are beneath you

>...which, since you haven't noticed, is why so little of the discussion has been about original question except in the context of the answer I gave to it.
and yet this doesn't stop you from attempting to steer discussion back to that question

>Psychology isn't a hard science, which you already know.
i know that when psychologist want to make an argument they use studies. they give sources. they follow the scientific method.

>The responses I received here certainly validates it.
the replies of 4-5 anonymous people telling you to stfu is not only a poor sample size but a poor basis for any argument other than "the majority of people actively posting in this thread want you to stfu"

>So, no, it isn't just my "opinion and anecdotes".
it's your opinion/anecdotes plus the opinions of 4-5 others telling you to stfu

>A bit too late then, anon. Then it isn't a theory anymore. It's a law. Touche. See? That's what comes from your brand of smarty-pants bullshit.
....you got me
>>
File: FallacyFallacy.png (269 KB, 800x423)
269 KB
269 KB PNG
>>1788005
>but clearly his intent was to troll
"clearly" nothing. Intent is probably the most difficult thing in the world to prove, legally speaking. You're building your entire case around one short, possibly rhetorical, sentence.

>the question that you just called blunt and obnoxious. the one you keep linking to. the one you keep saying everyone should answer. the one you reference later in your reply.
It's the answer, not the question, that received a disproportionate response. It's the one I keep saying everyone DIDN'T answer. Or, very nearly everyone.

>this continues to be a poor attempt to validate the time spent in a thread you have no interest in interacting with people you think are beneath you
I've taken an interest in the replies I've received on the thread, original topic notwithstanding. And so? You certainly seem quite invested in replying as well. How I spend my time is my business, technically my employer's.

>and yet this doesn't stop you from attempting to steer discussion back to that question
With good reason. It's the one thing nearly everyone has been pointedly avoiding.

>they give sources. they follow the scientific method.
Let's just jump ahead and save some time. You want to argue over the scientific definition of "theory".

You'd rather concentrate on the term we use to describe my claim, rather than the anguished, (and more importantly) -ongoing- fury that continues to confirm and validate the claim itself. Great. pic related. That's not a concession, by any means. I'm simply saving myself a long march across the board, picking off the pieces.

>"the majority of people actively posting in this thread want you to stfu"
Correction. The majority of people actively posting in this thread are STILL bawwing over a comment I made last Friday. Today that number is down to two, one of whom specifically revived the dispute because that's what anons do when something unexpectedly cuts much too close to home. Validation, ex post facto.
>>
>>1788024
>"clearly" nothing. Intent is probably the most difficult thing in the world to prove, legally speaking. You're building your entire case around one short, possibly rhetorical, sentence.
he was a troll. his intent is clear. this isn't a court.

The only person who cares is you
>...about the original question? Or silently humouring your drivel? If it's the former, you're wrong. If it's the latter so sorry, no reason I should.
the question that you just called blunt and obnoxious. the one you keep linking to. the one you keep saying everyone should answer. the one you reference later in your reply.
>It's the answer, not the question, that received a disproportionate response. It's the one I keep saying everyone DIDN'T answer. Or, very nearly everyone.

you're getting lost in your own stupidity

>I've taken an interest in the replies I've received on the thread, original topic notwithstanding. And so? You certainly seem quite invested in replying as well. How I spend my time is my business, technically my employer's.
you were the one trying to validate the time you spend here using your job and how much you make.

>With good reason. It's the one thing nearly everyone has been pointedly avoiding.
because he's trolling and no one cares. if i asked "why are you such a dumb cunt?" do you ignore the question or launch into a pseudo-psychological analysis of why you're not a dumb cunt. and how you know all about how dumb cunts think and how they can better themselves. it's bait and no one who was enjoying this thread was biting so you bit and now we're stuck with you while you desperately try to prove you're not a dumb cunt.

>Let's just jump ahead and save some time. You want to argue over the scientific definition of "theory"
no i want you to do what i asked and prove your "theory" is anything more than just your opinion/anecdotes. show me some facts to back it up.

>Validation, ex post facto.
this speaks for itself
>>
>>1788038
>he was a troll. his intent is clear. this isn't a court.

It's a forum and repeating yourself still doesn't make it true. From one sour, dry question, you've made sweeping assumptions about the writer's personality and his posting intent.

>you're getting lost in your own stupidity

More like coping with your deliberate vagueness. I care about the replies I've received to my comments because that's how normal human communication works. The original question the other anon asked, isn't as important to me. The replies I received by answering it are interesting, as is the way nearly everyone refused to answer him on an otherwise chatty board.

>you were the one trying to validate the time you spend here using your job and how much you make.

When anon accuses me of wasting my time at night, I don't mind correcting them -particularly given the circumstances. None of your business, btw.

>because he's trolling and no one cares.

...which explains the butthurt on this thread ever since. Because no one cares. Try again.

>if i asked "why are you such a dumb cunt?" do you ignore the question or launch into a pseudo-psychological analysis of why you're not a dumb cunt.

Neither. I point out you've made Loaded Question fallacy. Then I note the irony of a shit-tier debator calling anyone a "dumb cunt" while making a glaring error in his reasoning..

> while you desperately try to prove you're not a dumb cunt.

New fallacy unlocked: begging the question aka circular reasoning. Your premise assumes the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. Very common problem when delivering an attack based around a rhetorical question.

You're not "dumb" per se, just sloppy and untutored. Put another way, your high opinion of yourself doesn't match your skill set, bub.
>>
>>1788038
>no i want you to do what i asked and prove your "theory" is anything more than just your opinion/anecdotes. show me some facts to back it up.

What you -should- have done is ask me to SUPPORT my theory, but you aren't quite clever enough to make that distinction. You came in here eager to split hairs over terminology, yet you're ignorant of the finer distinctions in basic vocabulary

It's a fact people don't repeatedly lash out with spittle-flecked rage when a "theory" is baseless. The reaction on this thread has been atypical. Error doesn't provoke such anger. Nor does it provoke the relentless determination you're displaying trying to disprove it. The truth hurts, especially unflattering truths.

It's also a fact that people routinely refuse to accept supporting evidence for an unpopular theory, something you're almost certainly going to prove with your next reply. Lastly, the validity of a fact is not dependent on your personal acknowledgement.

>Validation, ex post facto.
>this speaks for itself
Yes it does. Ties in nicely with my last point. Thanks for noticing.
>>
>>1787983
>>1788012
More like them, oh my god.
>>
Fuck you people are stupid. Its a porn thread. Im here to be turned ON by men, not irreversably flaccid when I stop seeing porn and see nothing but posts between bickering queens. GTFO
>>
>>1788226
>not irreversably flaccid when I stop seeing porn

It's called Erectile Dysfunction for a reason, anon.
>>
>>1788220
>It's a forum and repeating yourself still doesn't make it true. From one sour, dry question, you've made sweeping assumptions about the writer's personality and his posting intent.
he was a troll.

>More like coping with your deliberate vagueness.
>>1788005
>because he was a clearly a fucking troll either insulting people or baiting out responses so he could insult people. Unless he's you, he clearly hasn't been back here so he clearly doesn't give a shit whether we answered his question or not. The only person who cares is you
>...about the original question? Or silently humouring your drivel? If it's the former, you're wrong. If it's the latter so sorry, no reason I should.
again nobody, not even the anon who posted it, cares about this question but you.
>...which, since you haven't noticed, is why so little of the discussion has been about original question except in the context of the answer I gave to it.

so to be clear in the same reply you claim not to know what question im talking about, later saying because i was being vague. but then you immediately understand the question of reference and complain that no one talking about it and instead answering you

this is what i mean by getting lost in your own stupidity.

>When anon accuses me of wasting my time at night, I don't mind correcting them -particularly given the circumstances. None of your business, btw.
no one cares that you've posted at different hours on weekends and weekdays. no one cares that this implies, based on your claims, that either you work all the time at random shifts or you're coming here on your off hours. the only one trying to validate their time here is you. you don't have to prove anything to anyone. you can completely ignore this block of text
>>
>>1788220
>...which explains the butthurt on this thread ever since. Because no one cares. Try again.

>It's the one thing nearly everyone has been pointedly avoiding.
> why so little of the discussion has been about original question except in the context of the answer I gave to it.
> What's equally obvious is a.) nobody wanted to answer one anon's question

by your own admission no one cares about the question. by your own admission everyone has just been responding to you.

no one cares about that question. everyone wants you to stfu though.

>Neither. I point out you've made Loaded Question fallacy.
and yet you literally replied to the same "loaded question fallacy" with
>>1786276

>New fallacy unlocked: begging the question aka circular reasoning. Your premise assumes the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. Very common problem when delivering an attack based around a rhetorical question.

that's not a question or a fallacy. i'm calling you a dumb cunt you dumb cunt. im saying everything you type here is a shitty attempt to prove you're not a dumb cunt and it's only making you come off like a dumb cunt.

you dumb cunt.

>What you -should- have done is ask me to SUPPORT my theory,
>give solid statistical proof or studies to back up your theory and I will gladly have this discussion with you. We can talk about the data. Sample size and demographics. The possible errors. The validity of the conclusions. etc

that is me asking you to support your theory

>You came in here eager to split hairs over terminology,
>You'd rather concentrate on the term we use to describe my claim, rather than the anguished, (and more importantly) -ongoing- fury that continues to confirm and validate the claim itself. Great. pic related. That's not a concession, by any means. I'm simply saving myself a long march across the board, picking off the pieces.

that is you arguing with yourself terminology because i just asked you to support your theory
>>
>>1788267
>he was a troll.

Maybe I should ask you to show some facts. I would but since you're working with one sentence, you don't have any.

>The only person who cares is you

The question he asked wasn't as important as the reaction my reply got and the way everyone else avoided the question. So, no, I don't especially care about his question, beyond noting the effect it caused. After all, I already answered it.

>so to be clear...

Splicing several different comments out of sequence to create a contradiction isn't particularly clever. You certainly aren't "proving" anything by doing so. It's arguing in bad faith on your part. I've already summed up my motivations for replying enough. (see my reply directly above). That should be sufficient, even for someone like you.

>no one cares that you've posted at different hours on weekends and weekdays. etc
.
Wrong. >>1786347 did which is why we're having this conversation now. That, and you're attempting to "prove" some notion of validation for whatever irrelevant reason.
>>
>>1788275
>by your own admission no one cares about the question. by your own admission everyone has just been responding to you.

By my own admission? Nearly everyone avoided answering the question, on an otherwise chatty board. They cared enough NOT to answer it.

> everyone wants you to stfu though.

Do you have a study for that, hmmm? Did you get a paper published in the American Statistical Association? No? Then you'd best drop that nasty habit of speaking for everyone else's wishes.

>and yet you literally replied to the same "loaded question fallacy" with

You're basing that on an unproven claim the original question was made by a troll. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. In your case, there's none. You fucked up.

>that's not a question or a fallacy. i'm calling you a dumb cunt you dumb cunt. etc...

Ad hominem, much? Can you do any better than that? The Ad Nauseum seems a bit superflous by now.

>that is me asking you to support your theory

That's you swapping statements out of order to cover your mistake. Good job. That seems your new tactic here.

>that is you arguing with yourself terminology because i just asked you to support your theory

That's me pointing out you can't have it both ways. Either make sure your terminology is perfect or you shouldn't complain about mine. This is me supporting my theory which you obviously chose to ignore:

It's a fact people don't repeatedly lash out with spittle-flecked rage when a "theory" is baseless. The reaction on this thread has been atypical. Error doesn't provoke such anger. Nor does it provoke the relentless determination you're displaying trying to disprove it.
>>
>>1788295
>Maybe I should ask you to show some facts..
he was a troll

>Splicing several different comments...
those were your replies. it's not me doing anything special. it looks contradictory because it was. you feign confusion about the question then directly reference it in the same post, then claim that you were confused because i was being vague even though you referenced it in the post you claim to be confused about.

this is all you

>Wrong. >>1786347 did which is why we're having this conversation now.
no we're having this conversation because you choose to validate your time here as a response. it wasn't asked of you to do this. it continues to be your choice. again, you can ignore this.

>By my own admission? Nearly everyone avoided answering the question, on an otherwise chatty board. They cared enough NOT to answer it.
not answering a question means we care and are butthurt over it. got it.

>Do you have a study for that, hmmm?
>>1787978
>>1787962
>>1787925
>>1786925
>>1786635
>>1786296

the gist of all these replies is stfu. i said everyone you thought i literally meant everyone in the world. my bad. the people posting here want you to stfu.

>You're basing that on an unproven claim the original ques...
ok here's a legitimate question. Why are you such a dumb cunt? I'm 100% serious. i genuinely want a 100% serious response. if you ignore it or don't answer, according to your logic that means your butthurt. so please serious answers only.

>That's you swapping statements out of order to cover your mistake.
i ask you to support your theory with data and studies. you reply that im arguing about terminology. i tell you im not arguing terminology i want data and studies. you reply that it's not about terminology.

again, it looks that bad because it is that bad.

you look like a dumb cunt because you are a dumb cunt.
>>
>>1788329
On and on...

>those were your replies. it's not me doing anything special.

Yeah, just moving them around. Nothing special. Just building a strawman out what you need and discarding everything that doesn't fit your bullshit version. Fuck you.

>you feign confusion....

I've answered this several times already. It's simply tedium at this point.

>no we're having this conversation because you choose to validate your time here as a response.

No, we're having this conversation I responded to another anon's criticism and now you're fixating on it in some laughable attempt to prove... whatever.

>not answering a question means we care and are butthurt over it. got it.

What did I tell you about speaking for everyone else? Not answering a question and getting butthurt over the guy who did means you care. You still do, since you're still going.

>the gist of all these replies is stfu.

Most of which are yours. Not exactly a study, either.

>i said everyone you thought i literally meant everyone in the world. my bad. the people posting here want you to stfu.

No, that isn't what I thought, but it's nice to know you believe you have psychic powers and that /hm/ has appointed you their spokesman. Any other delusions you'd like to share?

>ok here's a legitimate question. Why are you such a dumb cunt? I'm 100% serious.

Loaded question fallacy. Yawn.

>i ask you to support your theory with data and studies. you reply that im arguing about terminology.

Liar. Direct quote. "Psychology isn't a hard science, which you already know. The responses I received here certainly validates it." You've been doing that a LOT lately, your "re-caps" of the discussion are actually "re-writes" and it's tiresome.




>>
>>1788329
>i tell you...

...and here's another fictionalization of what was actually said into what you felt it should say.

>again, it looks that bad because I've re-written it that way.

Irony intentional. It's also boring with capital B and not even worth untangling anymore.

All of this silly bullshit you've been engaging, whether it's over the motivation of the original question or which question was or wasn't vague, validation, your self-appointed spokesmanship, the definition of "theory" or anything else, none of it counters the claim I made. None of it is even remotely connected to that post where I explained the motivation of you and every sorry-ass like you.

All this nit-picking about everything else has no bearing on my original theory. None. That's a Fallacy fallacy along with a fucking fishing-boat's worth of red-herrings. I tried to save us both the time several posts back, but no.

You ask for proof of my theory? You're IT, baby. Look at yourself. Page after page on every single sentence, because I have your sad motivations for liking these losers nailed and you can't stand that.

Anything is better than confronting your own preference for third rate. You don't have to worry about being an abusive asshole when your boyfriend knows dumping you might leave him stuck with someone even worse.

You're either this desperate or you're taking advantage of their desperation.Worse, maybe you're both right and deserve each other. Either way, it's tragic.
>>
>>1788345
>Yeah, just moving them ar...
nothing was moved. it's still there. >>1788005 2nd response feign confusion. 4th response reference what you're supposed to be confused about. >>1788220 2nd response claiming that you were confused because it was vague.

i really like how stupid you feel this makes you look. its like looking in a mirror for the first time for you.

>No, we're having this convers...
yes, responded by trying to validate your time here. good job. late hours. we're agreeing on this.

>Not answering a question and getting butthurt over the guy who did means you care.
ok got it.

>Loaded question fallacy. Yawn.
ok you didn't answer my question so I will answer it.

you're a dumb cunt because you entered a thread filled with pictures of men you find unattractive to reply to a troll post. at this point i can only assume you feel your reply was the greatest and most honest thing ever written by man and you are deeply hurt everyone who has read it just thinks you're a dumb cunt who's probably ugly and hates himself enough to troll porn threads he doesn't like so he can feel better about himself. everything you've typed since then has been equally as dumb as your first reply but now you can't back down because you're insecure and this is best thing you've got going for you. if we don't give you the respect you think you deserve you're certainly not going to get it anywhere else because im sure irl everyone has given up interacting with a dumb cunt like you.
>>
>Liar.
>>1787983 4th response: me asking you to prove your theory with studies and data
>>1788005 5th response: you saying psychology isn't a hard science
>>1788012 5th response: me saying psychologist still use studies, sources, and the scientific method
>>1788024 5th response: you saying i want to argue about terminology
>>1788038 6th response: me correcting you and saying i want the facts i asked for in >>1787983 and >>1788012
>>1788221 1st response: you saying that i should have asked you to support your theory instead of arguing about terminology

yes. that's really how it looks. you really look as dumb as you're starting to you realize.

you dumb fucking cunt
>>
>>1788466
>i really like how stupid you feel this makes you look. its like looking in a mirror for the first time for you.
You aren't making me feel stupid, just vindicated at how closely I cut with my original post. :D People overuse the terms autism and OCD, but this... this is textbook.

The "summaries" are your usual dishonest shit so no suprises there. Only one problem: you haven't done zip to undermine my original theory. All of this is litterally miles away from where you should be. You seem hell-bent on making the same fundamental error in reasoning over and over again despite my best efforts.

A lack of published support for a claim and the claim being incorrect are two entirely different things. Happily, /hm/ helpfully supplied staggering amounts of empirical support, you in particular. Only an unendurable truth motivates this kind of determination to attack its author in lieu of whatever claim he made.

Obsessively arguing over flat-out irrelevancies like "validation", this level of cataloging/ fraudulent "summarizing" and, yes, and endlessly yammering "you dumb cunt" fully justifies my original claim that people like you have personality problems and an emotional need to feel "superior" in a relationship. If you're this neurotic in a social setting, pity the poor bastard who gets involved with you romantically. You've become your own worst enemy in any attempt to prove otherwise.

All of this is a deflection on your part, nothing more. And a huge helping of projection. You put too much effort into that part, btw. Scientists can ID a snake by its venom and the same applies here. ;) That notwithstanding, which is more effective? Demanding scientific studies for a theory you don't like or conclusively disproving it yourself?

With all the work you've put into this, I'm certain you DID go looking for a proverbial "slam dunk" and found the same thing I already did: Reams of articles about the dangers of settling for less in a relationship.
>>
That's ultimately what you're doing, anon. Worse, you prefer the most desperate and vulnerable guys because they suit you for the pettiest of reasons. Someone noticed and you don't like it. Too bad. Now you're forced to see your preferences in the same contemptible light others do. That won't change even when you're done cataloging every post on the thread.

People like you are either desperate yourselves or (speculation, here) the kind of who feed on the desperation of others. Neither trait is flattering. Only the physically unattractive and the hopelessly awkward would ever put up with your level of bullshit.

Even average-looking guys won't put up with a boyfriend who catalogs and rewords a week's worth emails trying to "prove" who was supposed to book a flight. They don't have to stand for that crap and they don't. Little wonder you prefer the miserable souls who look like they can't do any better.

Do I have a study showing you're an asshole with a defective personality? Do I even need one at this point? You've done magnificent job proving that already.
>>
>>1788613
>You aren't making me feel stupid
you think your own words are stupid. again not me doing a magic trick just presenting your own ideas in the logical order they were posted.

>A lack of published support for a claim and the claim being incorrect are two entirely different things. Happily, /hm/ helpfully supplied staggering amounts of empirical support, you in particular.
>and found the same thing I already did: Reams of articles about the dangers of settling for less in a relationship.

so there is no published support for your theory and it's based on your own empirical evidence BUT you also found tons of articles to support your theory.

this is you once again contradicting yourself in your own reply. It's like you type each paragraph as just a spitball of random ideas then you post them all regardless of if they make sense together.

>Do I have a study showing you're an asshole with a defective personality?
do you have a study proving you're not a dumb cunt? because i posted why you were a dumb cunt and you haven't refuted it so im pretty sure the way this works now is that's empirical proof that you're a dumb cunt. i mean you've probably always as dumb cunt but now there is solid fact based evidence.
>>
>>1788640

>you think your own words are stupid.
I think your re-summarizing them to your own advantage is. ...and then there's this sort of silly shit: "the logical order". Ah. Not the chronological order, because then they don't fit your argument. That's not even bullshit-tier arguing, that's literally re-writing it. Here's another gem:

>so there is no published support for your theory and it's based on your own empirical evidence BUT you also found tons of articles to support your theory.

I haven't found any published studies covering why some gay men prefer nerds and geeks. They may in fact still exist.
I found plenty of relationship articles saying "don't settle for less", some written by pyschologists, but they're not journal published studies.
Your tantrums and misleading crap certainly are empirical support that you can't cope with the original theory and that it sends you into a fury.

That was all clearly laid out. You chose "summarize" it into something contradictory. That's not even argument, it's fabrication. The only contradiction is the one YOU created.

Between the endless name calling, the OCD cataloging, re-ordering comments, the failed logic, the BS summaries... normal people don't behave like this even in a disagreement. If you're trying to defend people who like nerds and geeks with this kind of ugly tantrum, you're not doing anybody any favors.
>>
>I think your re-summarizing them to your own advantage is
it's not a re-summary. i didn't change anything. i literally linked what you said in the order that you said it. it looks dumb because it's dumb. maybe you should try not being a dumb cunt and you wouldn't have ended up typing a bunch of dumb cunt shit.

>I haven't found any published studies covering why some gay men prefer nerds and geeks.
so you have no evidence to back up your reply to OP.

>I found plenty of relationship articles saying "don't settle for less", some written by pyschologists, but they're not journal published studies.
and you consider Cosmo a reputable source of information

>Your tantrums and misleading crap certainly are empirical support that you can't cope with the original theory and that it sends you into a fury.
by this logic it's proof that you can't cope with people calling your theory crap and it's sent you into a fury

im contributing topic appropriate pics in a thread i enjoy and calling you a dumb cunt

you're spending all hours of the day refreshing a thread you don't enjoy trying to convince everyone who has replied to you this is not a waste of your time and you're definitely not a dumb cunt

> If you're trying to defend people who like nerds and geeks with this kind of ugly tantrum, you're not doing anybody any favors.
there's no need to defend people who like these guys. the raw sexual appeal of these men is obvious. it's magnetic. a force of nature. >>1788468 i wish i could wake up every morning impaled on his dick

so im not trying to defend anyone

im trying, successfully, to post hot dudes and call you a dumb cunt. and i've got plenty of hot dudes and you keep giving endless reasons for me to call you a dumb cunt

you dumb cunt
>>
guys when i said i wanted a thread filled with nerds, i didn't mean this
>>
What is going on?
>>
>>1788702
> i didn't change anything.
Since it wasn't a direct quote, yeah, you DID change what I said. Nice try.

> so you have no evidence to back up your reply to OP.
By now, I have a thread full of it. You keep posting more! :D

> and you consider Cosmo a reputable source of information
...implying that's the only source. Almost forgot. Genetic Fallacy. Like I said before, you don't know how to properly debate and it shows.

>by this logic it's proof that you can't cope with people calling your theory crap...
Calling a theory crap and showing it as such are two different things, bub. Then again, name-calling is the closest you normally are able to come, barring another "summary."

Post all the "hot" guys you want. You prefer the unattractive because hot guys don't want anything to do with you. At this point I wonder if even your "hot" guys ever stick around past the first hook-up. That's making a huge assumption the first one even happens. You've posting the most epic autistic tantrum on /hm/ all year, trying to prove you don't have a personality problem. That's all the support my theory needs, found here for any recent arrivals: >>1786276
>>
>>1788735
i both quoted it verbatim and quoted it by linking with numbers referencing the post in question. nothing was changed.

>By now, I have a thread full of it. You keep posting more! :D
and i have proved using the same logic that you're a dumb cunt so it's win win

>...implying that's the only source.
im surprised thats a source for you at all. have some standards man

>Calling a theory crap and showing it as such are two different things, bub.
by your logic your rage is proof that it's crap. every reply you make proves more and how crappy it is.

>Post all the "hot" guys you want.
i will

>You've posting the most epic autistic tantrum on /hm/ all year, trying to prove you don't have a personality problem.

me posting in thread i enjoy with pics i enjoy.

you posting in thread you find disgusting trying to prove you're not a dumb cunt
>>
>>1788741
Any post reading "this is you saying" followed by a summary isn't a quote verbatim. Linking summarized posts out of sequence (aka your "logical order", wow) certainly IS changing thengs.

>and i have proved using the same logic
The sad part is you -don't- use logic. Let's use your favorite phrase for an example.

Even if an inarticulate, genuinely uneducated person made a similar claim as I did here >>1786276, accusing them of being a "dumb cunt" doesn't disprove the claim they made. That's an Ad Hominem fallacy.

Trying to prove they're a "dumb cunt", even if hypothetically successful, STILL doesn't disprove the claim they made. That's a Genetic fallacy.

Arguing their claim is invalid just -because- they're a "dumb cunt" is a Fallacy fallacy.

That's why "dumb cunt" doesn't mean anything coming from a guy who keeps making these dumb, i.e. uneducated mistakes. ;)
>>
>>1788741
>im surprised thats a source for you at all. have some standards man
There are others, but even IF "Cosmo" was the sole source, you're still making a Genetic fallacy. See? This is why I say you don't use logic. Incidentally, paraphrasing what I say isn't logic.

>by your logic your rage is proof that it's crap.
Case in point re: faulty paraphrasing. First, I'm not. Second, let's suppose I -was- angry, just for the sake of discussion. A person's emotional state has no bearing on the validity of the theory he presented. That's an Ad Hominem fallacy, "U mad so it's false". The difference between us is I'm using -your- anger to support a claim my theory cuts too close to home, i.e. you're angry because the claim is true.

Someone out there finally sees you for what you are, why you like what you like, and that bothers you. You're preying on guys who either look as bad as you or worse than you because they can't do any better than you. Beyond that, I find you a curiosity, mostly.

The anonymity of a chan board means you don't have to conceal your personality problems the way you do when dealing with people face to face. Example: we both know you don't tell your shift-leader she's a "dumb cunt" every time you disagree with her. Your reaction here is no different than any other mentally ill person getting angry at something his therapist said. It certainly doesn't help your position and, yes, it does bolster mine.
>>
>>1788741
>me posting in thread i enjoy with pics i enjoy.
If your idea of "enjoyment" includes creating OCD-level comment catalogs and a steady stream of mindless abuse, God help anyone you enjoy being around. You flipped because a total stranger figured "you" out and pulled those ugly nasty petty reasons you enjoy these kinds of guys out where everyone can see.

>you posting in thread you find disgusting trying to prove you're not a dumb cunt
They're certainly unattractive, but there's much worse on /hm/. I'm posting here because this thread is your natural habitat. You're weird, you have interesting emotional problems and your anger is visceral because it's genuine. ...mostly the same reasons Chris-Chan stillhas a following. That, and you reply the way he might if I criticized pokemon.

When a guy says you need to feel superior to other people, creating a long reference catalog of his comments, taking them out of order and re-writing them to create contradictions isn't the best way to disprove it.

When a guy says you have a personality problem, filling a thread with endless name-calling isn't the best way to disprove that, either. It's a great way of accomplishing quite the opposite.
>>
I've never posted on 4chan in my entire life but i need to ask what the absolute fuck just happened to this thread
>>
>>1789152
>Any post reading "this is you saying" fol
except i copied and pasted your replies in the order you posted them. >>1788005 again you wrote this dumb shit. thats your post. in the same reply acting confused. referencing what you were confused about. you can keep complaining about it but it's not going away.

>The sad part is you -don't- use logic.
>Only an unendurable truth motivates this kind of determination to attack its author in lieu of whatever claim he made.

>A person's emotional state has no bearing on the validity of the theory he presented. That's an Ad Hominem fallacy
>It's a fact people don't repeatedly lash out with spittle-flecked rage when a "theory" is baseless. The reaction on this thread has been atypical. Error doesn't provoke such anger. Nor does it provoke the relentless determination you're displaying trying to disprove it. The truth hurts, especially unflattering truths.

>If your idea of "enjoyment" includes creating OCD-level comment catalogs and a steady stream of mindless abuse
>My personal theory is they have low self esteem an absolutely horrendous self-image
>pulled those ugly nasty petty reasons you enjoy these kinds of guy
>You prefer the unattractive because hot guys don't want anything to do with you
>You're weird, you have interesting emotional problems
>>1788295
>>1788220
>>1788024

just comment catalogs and shit talk from you.

>: we both know you don't tell your shift-leader she's a "dumb cunt" every time you disagree with her.
...do you assume every job has a shift leader?

obviously we're at the point where your dumb cunt ass has posted enough dumb cunt shit that i can probably respond to anything you say with something you've said. so that's what im gonna try to do from now on to keep this fun for me.
>>
>>1789206
>except i copied and pasted your replies in the order you posted them.
My replies? No. Your summaries of my replies, which, unsurprisingly, do contain convenient changes.

>you can keep complaining about it but it's not going away.
And? Your re-ordered summary is irrelevant to disproving my theory, HOW, exactly?. After all, >>1786276 is what set you off on all this. See my point about Fallacy fallacies.

Now there's something new: A greentext "argument" made out of my comments taken out of context and out of order. Wow. I'm not even sure there's been a fallacy invented for that yet. It's a... Contextual Strawman fallacy, I suppose.

>just comment catalogs and shit talk from you.
Let's call this the "Head In The Sand" fallacy. :D Literally. I laid out the errors you've been making and you're not even engaging in the discussion, just summarizing one of your own invention.

>...do you assume every job has a shift leader?
No. I assume YOUR job has a shift leader. Oh, you walked RIGHT into that one! I love it. :D Just beautiful. :D
>>
>>1789206
>i can probably respond to anything you say with something you've said.
That's a new level of non-discussion. Context of my comments? Order they were made? Relevance to the point being made? Who cares! If it sounds contradictory, that's good enough, right? Nope. Here's a hypothetical example.

Suppose I say: Oranges are sweet. Lemons are not. I think they taste bitter.
Your version of what I said would read:
-Oranges are sweet.
-I think they taste bitter.
-i copied and pasted your replies in the order you posted them.

What's impressive is that you're willing to go scouring through all my previous my comments over and over trying to find other ones that appear to be relevant AND contradictory. Like I said, this is god-tier autism. Does any of it have any bearing on >>1786276 ? In a way it does. You're THIS butthurt because the claim is true. That's why you haven't/ can't/ won't deal with it directly. And, no, "you can keep complaining about it but it's not going away."

>i can probably respond to anything you say with something you've said.
Couldn't resist. Touche! ;)
>>
>>1789212
>Your re-ordered summary is irrelevant to disproving my theory, HOW, exactly?
should read
>Your re-ordered summary is relevant to disproving my theory, HOW, exactly?

Just to keep you honest. ;)
>>
>My replies? No. Your summaries of my replies, which, unsurprisingly, do contain convenient changes.
>All of this is a deflection on your part, nothing more.

>Your re-ordered summary is relevant to disproving my theory, HOW, exactly?
>You ask for proof of my theory? You're IT, baby. Look at yourself. Page after page on every single sentence

>I laid out the errors you've been making and you're not even engaging in the discussion, just summarizing one of your own invention.
>New fallacy unlocked: begging the question aka circular reasoning.

>No. I assume YOUR job has a shift leader.
>Protip: Some of us work nights and we do so by choice. We get paid incredibly well because we enjoy living like Count Dracula. Not having to put up with someone like you as a co-worker for eight fucking hours every "day" is also a definite plus.

>That's a new level of non-discussion. Context of my comments? Order they were made? Relevance to the point being made?
>You should be grateful I'm validating you with an answer.
>>
Why are people arguing in the best thread here? baka
>>
>>1788038
This is easily my favorite image in this whole thread so far.
>>
File: really.jpg (44 KB, 460x300)
44 KB
44 KB JPG
>>1789223
Damn, all that greentext is hell on the eyes.

You've actually strung random quotes of mine together trying to show.. something.

Some of these pairings aren't even contradictory, even with them being totally out of context. They're just... there. Wow.
>>
>>1789226
>>1789228
im glad that even through this autistic battlefield anons are still enjoying the thread
>>
>>1789243
AYYY, more pics of the hot guy. Do you know who he is by any chance, like if he does porn or anything?
>>
>>1789244
no idea. probably a redditor but who knows the username
>>
>>1789248
Damn. Guy's super cute tho. Thanks for supplying my ammo for today lmao.
>>
need more chinless guys
i'm sorry i have nothing to contribute
>>
>>1789248
delicious.
>>
>>
Fuck this is my fetish
>>
>>
>>1789248
>>1789243
hung nerds > anything else
>>
>>
File: 96420_08.jpg (1.33 MB, 1280x1920)
1.33 MB
1.33 MB JPG
>>
File: 15342092.jpg (15 KB, 311x199)
15 KB
15 KB JPG
>>
>>1790702
it's a shame that guys one other video involves blood.
>>
>>1791426
Got a link to >>1790702 ?
>>
>>1791602
https://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=1775493381
>>
>>1791426
... what do you mean anon
>>
>>1791426
explain
>>
>>1791879
>>1792060
A J/O video with a knife, so yea.
>>
>>1792085
What’s the link anon
>>
>>1789417
i love that he's growing out his body hair now
>>
File: RYBY4099a.jpg (105 KB, 720x1280)
105 KB
105 KB JPG
>>
this why white women are getting dominated by blacks and asians
>>
File: Zelda.jpg (115 KB, 1200x886)
115 KB
115 KB JPG
>>1792404
The guys on this thread wouldn't even notice, even if they were straight. Pic related.
>>
>>
>>1786257
Some of them are cute, and since not everyone is either a master aesthete or a physical demigod, erotic fantasy, in order to work a certain kind of quasi-hallucinatory magic, sometimes needs to be at least plausibly on the level of one's own experience and expectations. In effect, it's more relatable if you are kind of geeky/dorky/nerdy. The main thing is to combine self-acceptance with sufficient self-appreciation to take care of oneself. In the long run, kicky fun is had by all who aren't at war everywhere and all the time, and have good instincts: Most men aren't emotionally retarded, though now and then one finds, or is, a genius of love to whom very serious beauty finds its equivalent, to enjoy profoundly merry makings.
>>
File: 9678760392-211730421-L.jpg (101 KB, 450x800)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
>>
File: 9678784247-211730421-L.jpg (103 KB, 450x800)
103 KB
103 KB JPG
>>
File: 9221700598-136077663-L.jpg (107 KB, 600x800)
107 KB
107 KB JPG
>>
>>
>>1773497
who is he? he's so gorgeous
>>
This tread is just full of all the things I hate about myself
>>
>>1773517
What's his blog??
>>
>>1793982
so that means you have some things a lot of guys like
>>
>>1791826
Holy fuck that's hot. I'd love a dominant nerdy boyfriend like that... or even just a dominant nerdy guy using me for sex!
>>
>>1786257 I love these kinds of guys. Personally they look the best to me for some reason.
Now, I'm not exactly sure about this, but I believe I fall into this category. If anyone would like me to post something here then I wouldn't necessarily mind.
>>
>>1794354
Aww, that's a really sweet way of looking at it.
>>
>>1794397
i wasn't trying to be sweet

>people enjoying guys who look like this
>i don't enjoy looking like these guys that people enjoy

it was a stupid thing to say in a thread like this unless you want guys asking you to post pics.
>>
>>
>>1794947
sauce?
>>
>>1773547
This guy is the spitting image of a guy in my physics course who I'd fuck if it meant I could ride his coattails. Kid's going places.
>>
>>1796069
Thats adonis-kun, he used to post alot back in the day.

Should be in his late 20s right about now.
>>
>>1796565
>>
>>
File: nd (3).jpg (123 KB, 966x1093)
123 KB
123 KB JPG
>>1789244
>>1789248
BIGzed on NewbieNudes
https://www.newbienudes.com/profile/BIGzed/
>>
>>1797492
yo if you're a member can put all the fullsize pics in a file for download
>>
>>1797492
Well shit. Now I've got a lot of pics of him to fap to lmao.
>>
>>
File: 373_1000.jpg (95 KB, 770x968)
95 KB
95 KB JPG
>>
File: sweet-dude-posing.jpg (188 KB, 650x1503)
188 KB
188 KB JPG
>>
>>
File: 2808071_11.jpg (12 KB, 480x320)
12 KB
12 KB JPG
>>
>>1799105
This dude looks so much like someone I know that I had to do a double take

Cute as fuck though. Redhead nerds are the best
>>
>>1799960
No. Thread is for nerds who look like nerds.

Not idiots making duck faces.
>>
.
https://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ph5beb23c6f1f7d
>>
>>
>>1786239
Holy fuck he's hot. Anymore?
>>
>>
File: 1322039568803.jpg (1.24 MB, 2385x2667)
1.24 MB
1.24 MB JPG
>>
>>1773918
yes please
>>
>>
bump. Sauce on this hottie? Loving the hair. If no sauce, then similar looking guys?
>>
I love nerds threads
>>
>>1802895
ok i need a source on this i've seen another part of this video i didn't realize there was more to it
>>
>>1804061

They're from a tumblr user named imlookin4modelny. His blog got shut down and he used to do a whole bunch of gay for pay shit. You can probably still find his videos if you search his name.
>>
>>1802895
>>1804061
>>1804175
dylan4694u.tumblr.com/post/157144574362
tiktactoe31.tumblr.com/post/168163049903/

some of my favorite vids of all time. just the way the dude acts, awkward and confident at the same time. plus the smiles!
>>
>>1805140
thanks for those. shame there's not more of that guy. also the guy who took it seems so have closed his tumblr
>>
>>1805140
>>1806188

Yeah, shame. That guy exactly my type. Soft facial features, nerdy stature, a bit hairy (though I mostly care about it around the cock), and a body that isn't too fit but not too unfit. Would love to get fucked by him, watching his face squirm when he pushes his cock in me and cumming. If anyone has similar guys pls post.
>>
>>
Does anyone have that one long haired sort of buff guy that took a selfie with a tablet/ipad? It was on the last thread but didnt get archived :(
>>
>>1797836
lovely ass
>>
>>1773498
>but he was straight and had a gf.

>2018
>Finding this to be a hurdle
Jesus, Anon, the gf makes it even easier to get his straight boy genes.
>>
>>1775355
>>1775356
>>1775357
Feels like a discount Griffin McElroy
>>
>>1775360
Really not nerdy. Just some jock with glasses
>>
>>1802895
HUGE DANNY
>>
>>1773498
>Untitled.png

Ha
>>
>>1811497
oh my god a pc music fan on /hm/
>>
>>1814095
PC music is listened to exclusively by bottoms and 19 year old girls who take Adderall. Not that surprising.
>>
>>1814102
FRIDAY NIGHT TIME TO GET DRUNK
I'm 23 and verse.
>>
>>1814339
It's Wednesday.
>>
>>1805140
>Tumblr
Fuck. Anybody have a second source?
>>
File: WAyMZcB.jpg (371 KB, 1538x2048)
371 KB
371 KB JPG
>>
File: uvukSrT.jpg (534 KB, 2320x3088)
534 KB
534 KB JPG
>>
File: QIJPs4e.jpg (971 KB, 1538x2048)
971 KB
971 KB JPG
>>
File: Q7PBWu8.jpg (341 KB, 1932x2576)
341 KB
341 KB JPG
>>
File: fVH3Iwv.jpg (305 KB, 1932x2576)
305 KB
305 KB JPG
I have some videos/gifs of this guy if you guys want some
>>
>>1814547
Yes please!
>>
>>1814547
More!
>>
>>1814451
Any more of this guy?
>>
Why is everyone in this Vol.2 thread ugly?
>>
File: cnkfn679se221.jpg (675 KB, 3024x3598)
675 KB
675 KB JPG
>>
>>1815010
Same reason they were in Vol. 1

It's what the thread is about: "your scrawny, your awkward, your pale and spotty.... your just plain kind of weird-looking"
>>
>>1791426
what the hell? link pls
>>
>>
Found this guy a while ago... he’s the best type of nerd I’ve even seen. Too bad he’s straight :(
That’s his PH profile:
https://www.pornhub.com/users/delightfullove00
>>
File: 56767.jpg (76 KB, 534x600)
76 KB
76 KB JPG
>>
>>1775237
different guy here and I also think the can looks small. My theory is it's some kind of perspective trick, look at how small his head is compared to his dick/ hands/ can.
>>
People need to figure out the difference between nerds and geeks and twinks who found glasses.
>>
>>1818610
this was great
i really liked that undershot vid
>>
File: IMG_20190106_144159.jpg (127 KB, 721x720)
127 KB
127 KB JPG
Smash player JohnnyFox
>>
File: download.png (9 KB, 211x239)
9 KB
9 KB PNG
>wearing glasses = nerd
>>
>>1819021
vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khiW61K9Ij0

Cant find anything about him online
>>
>>1819002
Damn who is this?! That dick! =O
>>
>>1819175
this
>>
File: nerds.gif (987 KB, 500x240)
987 KB
987 KB GIF
>>1819175
>>1819383
>complaining about content
>not posting content
>>
>>1820597
You haven't posted relevant content, either. That's an actor pretending to be a jock.
>>
File: nerd bf.jpg (83 KB, 420x632)
83 KB
83 KB JPG
>>
File: 1510543279975.webm (1.99 MB, 640x360)
1.99 MB
1.99 MB WEBM
>>
File: nerd.jpg (769 KB, 2448x3264)
769 KB
769 KB JPG
>>
>>1820795
I like him very much.
>>
>>1794955
Who has this guys dick pics?
>>
>>1821531
Doubt anyone, I'm pretty sure he's one of those pseudoscience fuckwit youtubers
>>
>>1820597
You actually just wasted an upload. We only get 150 photos each and your dumb gif was unnecessary.
>>
>>1792085
is there a link to that knife video? can't seem to find it.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.